Slashdot Mirror


Seattle City Council Unanimously Approves Income Tax For the Rich (geekwire.com)

reifman writes: Amazon, tech employees and those making $250,000 or more annually in Seattle will now pay a 2.25 percent income tax. "The Seattle City Council estimates that the tax would bring in an additional $140 million each year," reports GeekWire. "The revenue would go toward the city's housing affordability agenda and carbon reduction goals and supplant federal funds if they are cut. The revenue is also intended to alleviate the burden of Washington's property and sales taxes, which are often called the most regressive in the country." Anyone who's seen Amazon's impacts on Seattle and its low and middle income residents will appreciate how this tax will help the homeless, lower income and improve the environment. Not everyone is thrilled with the recently approved legislation. Jason Mercier, who directs the center for government reform with the Washington Police Center, said: "[The council is] going to unanimously adopt an illegal income tax that has no hope of taking effect and will waste taxpayer resources on litigation the city is sure to lose." The measure is expected to be challenged in court, as Washington's constitution states "a county, city, or city-county shall not levy a tax on net income." According to The Washington Post, Mercier said there is decade of case law saying that a graduated income tax is unconstitutional because income is property and under the constitution, property tax has to be taxed uniformly and no more than 1 percent.

18 of 486 comments (clear)

  1. Future proof by lucm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 10 years, the Seattle City council will complain about the impact of commuters on its road infrastructure, with larger and larger numbers of tech workers living outside the city where they are not subjects to Seattle taxes

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Future proof by superwiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it won't. It will complain about the impact of all unfinished construction projects and will to unsuccessfully sue corporations which abandoned them. The office space will be useless in Seattle because it will be impossible to hire anyone after they left for jobs on the Eastside or other parts of the country. Seattle has always been a ghost city. Even the Space Needle is usually empty. It has all the build out to welcome crowds of people minus the crowds. In the recent years, it's enjoyed a sprawl mostly due to growth of Amazon. But Amazon is so spread out around the country, that they can shift positions to different locations as their employees leave. That's one of the rules to running a company town -- don't chase out the company.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    2. Re:Future proof by schnell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In 10 years, the Seattle City council will complain about the impact of commuters on its road infrastructure

      More likely they will be complaining about why there isn't enough usage of the mandatory tandem bicycle ride-sharing service that they instituted when they turned all the city's North-South streets into seven-abroad bicycle lanes.

      I proudly call Seattle my home. And its mayors and city councils really do believe they're doing the right thing, bless their hearts. But they are pretty much all blithering idiots. Because Seattle is a tech boom town filled with generally liberal people, they have the money and political backing to do well-meaning but impractical things.

      You know, things like spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a bike share program in a city that is full of huge f***ing hills and where it rains half the year. Or mandating a $15 minimum wage without studying it first and then seeing it decrease earnings of those it was designed to help, at least according to one recent study (more research over time is still needed to say for sure). There's a much longer list for someone crankier than me to make.

      It's well meaning but it's almost universally poorly thought out in terms of unintended consequences. Like this income tax idea, which will perversely drive out the people who pay the most in property taxes and push them into driving into work from the suburbs. And Seattle already has miserable traffic. But, again, while the economic sun is shining the city has the leeway to try these grand but foolish experiments. Unfortunately, at some point the tech boom here will end and there will be a nasty bill to pay for it.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    3. Re:Future proof by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That might explain what happened to Detroit.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Future proof by XopherMV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or mandating a $15 minimum wage without studying it first and then seeing it decrease earnings of those it was designed to help, at least according to one recent study (more research over time is still needed to say for sure). There's a much longer list for someone crankier than me to make.

      It's well meaning but it's almost universally poorly thought out in terms of unintended consequences.

      Bullshit. I was part of the effort to raise the minimum wage in Seattle to $15. The effort was studied and argued ad nauseam. We looked at all the data. Study after study shows that paying people a living wage is not only feasible, but improves the economy. It may be shocking to learn, but putting money into the hands of people who'll actually spend it in the community boosts the economy. Your spending is my income, my spending is your income. You get paid more, then you spend more. Then I make more and pay you back. That's how economies work.

      (What hurts an economy? A few rich assholes sucking up all the money for themselves and then sending that money out of the economy to their Swiss bank accounts.)

      This recent study came out contradicting previous results. It stated that increasing the minimum wage hurts workers. Turns out the new study wasn't peer reviewed. Another shocker. One problem of many is that the new study excluded minimum wage employers with multiple locations. Why? No good reason. If a restaurant was successful and opened a second location, it wasn't included in the study. No surprise that increasing the minimum wage looks bad if you methodically cut out the successful businesses.

      http://www.epi.org/publication...

      Like this income tax idea, which will perversely drive out the people who pay the most in property taxes and push them into driving into work from the suburbs. And Seattle already has miserable traffic.

      Everyone wants to live close to downtown. Part of that is precisely because of the miserable traffic. We've got the hottest housing market in the nation. If a few people leave over the income tax, there's 10 times the number of people who'd love to buy their homes, move in, and pay that income tax. Our housing market will be completely fine with this tax change.

      But, again, while the economic sun is shining the city has the leeway to try these grand but foolish experiments. Unfortunately, at some point the tech boom here will end and there will be a nasty bill to pay for it.

      Yeah, sure. The internet is just a fad. It'll end soon. Keep telling yourself that.

  2. Is this additional income tax? by Gabest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean where I live you are happy to get 50% of your income after tax.

  3. I notice the American Right wing by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is all in favor of local government right up until they do something they don't like. Then they want the State gov't to step in and outlaw it. The State gov'ts seem about perfect. Big enough to oppress but not so big they can't just buy them all out.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I notice the American Right wing by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're in favor of SMALL (ie, less) government moreso than local government.

      In general most conservatives have no issue with a higher level of government saying to a lower level "No, you can't do that".

      You know how when Linux geeks say "I just want the OS to be unobtrusive and stay out of the way so I can work."? Apply the same logic to government.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:I notice the American Right wing by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First and foremost they are in favor of Rule of Law.

      Unconstitutional things remain unconstitutional regardless of how you feel about it.

      On the left tho.... that whole Rule of Law thing just gets in the way.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  4. Re:$250K is the definition of the evil 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is ridiculous, how pampered are you? $100k might be pushing it, but $250k for an INDIVIDUAL is most definitely "rich", and if you feel threatened by it, good.

  5. Re:$250K is the definition of the evil 1% by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why good? Are you saying he didn't earn that money?

  6. Re:$250K is the definition of the evil 1% by geoskd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, that was my first thought, when did $250K a year define you as rich?

    In *every* part of the US, that will define you as rich. If you can afford a $50,000 car, you are rich. If you can afford a 2000+ sqft home, you are rich. If you can afford to buy a decaf latte grande every day, you are rich. *Most* americans live paycheck to paycheck and are vastly in debt. Slashdotters are not typical people. Moreover, most slashdotters don't even know anyone who isn't rich. They will live in a rich neighborhood, and work with rich people, and buy everything online, or from stores staffed by the children of rich people. On the rare occasion when they do go into a walmart, they look at the cashier with pitty thinking that these are the only poor people. They never see the 5,000 people who would kill just to get that walmart job. They never see the people working the warehouse jobs, or the folks living in the places where you joke about being unsafe to drive at night. They simply don't understand that their world is the exception not the rule.

    The other side of that are the working class and poor. They know the rich exist, but they never see them, they never get to go into those neighborhoods. Their kids don't go to the same schools with the rich kids so they never have a reason to meet with the rich parents at PTA meetings (assuming they could even get enough time off work to go).

    The simple truth is there are two Americas. There is the one you live in, and the one they live in. I sincerely hope you never have to live in their world because it is a pale shadow of the America you live in. In spite of that fact, their lifes work means you can get your stuff cheap online and in store. They buy the products that directly or indirectly fund your huge paychecks. In a very real sense, they are very nearly modern day slaves who's entire existences fuels your lifestyle.

    The average American watching TV is looking at a lifestyle that is beyond their own. They can only aspire to have the kind of wealth they see on their nightly sitcoms and dramas, but they watch anyways always dreaming that they live those lives instead of their own.

    I could give you a million places to look where you could peel back the veil of abject poverty and see the new slave class this country has embraced, but it is probably better that you continue to live the fantasy so that you can pursue the things that just might actually make a better tomorrow for everyone. If you had to face the demons that comes with your own wealth, it might destroy the fragile innocence that allows you to sleep at night.

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  7. If it goes into effect it won't stay at $250K by boguslinks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in Seattle. You can debate the merits of having an income tax, or not. But you'd have to be an outright moron to think they would keep the threshold at $250K. Now they're saying "we'll have an income tax at $250K, we'll solve the homeless problem with the money". In 4 years, homeless issue will be worse, and they'll say "we'll make it $175K and we'll solve the homeless problem". 4 more years, "Let's make it $100K and we'll solve the homeless problem". Once the mechanism is in place they (the gummint) won't be able to control themselves.

  8. Says a Leftist... by s.petry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because the sure fire way to up your standard of living is under Socialism right? If you had not noticed, that only works in rare cases with certain people in power. Didn't work out well for most of the world, and sure as hell keeps people wanting to move out of even the best of the socialist countries. Talk to a Fin, German, or Swede about their great economic mobility opportunities. (real people, not fabricated media reports).

    Notice that there is no mention of "local" Government in our founding documents or our Constitution. Pushing to re-establish the Constitution is what the majority of people (read Not Politicians) want. This does put more power back into the State, where it was meant to be concentrated. It is much easier for the populace to have control over their State Government. The State is supposed to be a higher authority than a city/local Government.

    If your State does not address the issue, it's not magically a Federal issue. It remains a local/city issue. When the majority of people in that income range move and the city loses all that magical revenue they spent, you can vote them out and put in fiscally responsible politicians.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  9. You can not tax your way out of wasteful spending by schwit1 · · Score: 1, Insightful
    People are leaving high tax states-rich and poor. Just ask Connecticut, Illinois, New York, California and New Jersey.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/be...
    http://www.kitsapsun.com/story...
    http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

    You can also see it in the cost of a 26' UHaul between Texas and California/NY
    Los Angeles, CA to Dallas, TX: $2,558
    Dallas TX to Los Angeles: $1,232

    NY, NY to Dallas, TX: $2,772
    Dallas TX to NY, NY: $653

  10. Re:$250K is the definition of the evil 1% by CaptnCrud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its really depends on your lifestyle and how good you are with your money. Factors, like kids, marriages, do you need new shit all the time, are you a compulsive buyer or are you complete coal smuggler.

    I've found that how you spend ends up dictating your financial situation almost as much as your salary.

  11. Re:Fight back by lucm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a little extra tax that won't impact their lifestyle but will offset the negative effect they are having on everyone living around them?

    That's the dual fallacy of bleeding heart liberals, especially those who don't have themselves a decent income.

    First, that wealthy people have a negative effect on people living around them. That's simply not true, you're just demonizing people that *you don't know* for the sake of justifying the theft of their money. Second, tax money doesn't "offset" negative effects, they simply make the city adminisitration fatter and more powerful.

    For people who want to help the poor, there's charity and various NGOs. Leave the others alone and take your socialist views to one of those successful socialist countries, as soon as you find one.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  12. Re:$250K is the definition of the evil 1% by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given how frequent stories like this are in America, it always baffles me that Americans are so vehemently opposed to the kind of social healthcare enjoyed by Europe. When even the rich can be stung badly by medical bills and uncooperative insurers, it seems odd that they would reject the idea of getting rid of the insurers, paying a similar amount in tax instead, and getting healthcare for everyone without the risk of people missing out or being shafted by their insurers.

    I know it's all about that dreaded T-word. Americans hate the idea of being taxed. But really, the way things are set up now, you're effectively paying the same money to a private company. It may just as well be a tax.

    The American mind is trapped by ideology and propaganda. We have a strong myth of the self-made man who pulls himself up by his bootstraps, without help from others. The very wealthy perpetuate that myth because it serves to insulate them from judgement about the degree of their wealth. The money a person has "earned" is theirs to do with as they please, regardless of how disproportionate it might be or whatever else might be true. You see this in the irrational anti-tax attitudes you mentioned as well.

    The lower classes have also been conditioned to fight each other rather than band together. This is again by design. The owners have historically pitted groups against each other to keep them from uniting against a common enemy. So when people see public sector union workers (for example) getting benefits, they want to take those benefits away rather than ask why they also are not receiving those benefits.

    What this means is that many people vote for values rather than policies. They vote for the person who will maintain or implement the proper order of things, as they see it. Basically, they are more concerned with making sure the next guy is as miserable as they are, than they are with creating a shared prosperity.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)